Gold Coast cruise ship terminal: the inside report on the size of its footprint on The Spit

A shock new report says the proposed cruise ship terminal at The Spit will be bigger than first believed, taking away parkland and creating traffic challenges on The Spit. But it’s not all bad news for council’s plans.

THE proposed oceanside cruise ship terminal is bigger than first planned, taking away parkland and creating traffic challenges along The Spit, according to a new report.

The Bulletin in January revealed councillors had received a secret briefing about doubling the planned terminal at Philip Park on The Spit, with sources suggesting the cost could surge from $400 million to $650 million.

But Mayor Tom Tate who, is promising ratepayers will not tip in one cent, today suggested costings will be “a lot less” than $450 million.

State Development has released to The Bulletin the report by consultants to The Spit master plan who after considering the council’s business case made the following recommendations:

Designs for the proposed Oceanside cruise ship terminal at The Spit on the Gold Coast.

● Council in embarking on a bigger terminal footprint must consider the implications of removing about 25.4 hectares of land, and how that impacts on the city’s park demand and supply.

● About 317 public carparking spaces would be removed from Philip Park, which may discourage beachgoers and force the relocation of a patrolled surf area.

● Beach walkers will not be impeded by the jetty and it could provide shade for families, but there is a risk that large numbers of cruise ship passengers may displace locals on the beach.

The report said the business case put forward by the council predicted the facility would represent a “net cost to the CoGC over the 30 year analysis term” and “generate a significant economic return and worthwhile investment”.

“The business case also concluded that a positive cost benefit ratio would only be achieved through a home port option, not a transit port facility,” the report said.

“For a home port option there are a greater number of passenger and logistical support functions required than for a transit port.

“Facilities include passenger check-in and luggage handling, passport and immigration control, back of house services and logistical facilities for ship provisioning and servicing. As indicated in the business case and user brief, ship refuelling is assumed to be via a barge.”

The proposed Oceanside cruise ship terminal on The Spit at the Gold Coast.

The consultants said the council business case included a detailed brief showing:

● A terminal building cover a gross floor area of 3750 sqm including an entry hall, reception, check-in, baggage handling areas.

● A jetty consisting of a 900 metre long structure extending perpendicular from the shore, elevated for much of its length.

● It allows for prime movers and semi-trailers — additional ramping would be needed, four travel lanes over the coastal dune rather than two lanes.

● A breakwater is required to provide cruise ships with protection from waves while berthing and at dock. Plans indicate a structure 780 metres long and extending up to 6 metres above the lowest astronomical tide.

“This (the breakwater) is necessary to allow passengers to board and disembark the ship safely and provide certainty to the market of availability during adverse conditions,” the report said.

Mayor Tom Tate is hoping to keep the cruise ship terminal alive with a new site to be at Philip Park, Main Beach. Pic by David Clark.

SUBSCRIBE TO THE BULLETIN: JUST $1 A WEEK FOR FIRST 12 WEEKS

The council business case suggested the terminal was “not considered likely to have a significant impact on availability or quality of habitat”. Existing studies showed no threatened or near threatened species.

But the business case notes that traffic upgrades will be required including improvements to roundabouts and bridge connections.

Mayor Tom Tate told the Bulletin: “Council will present its business case to the State Government once the Spit master plan has been finalised and endorsed. As Mayor, I will be the first to rule out a cruise terminal if it does not meet Environmental Impact Study criteria.’’

Mayor Tom Tate with the original proposal. Pic by David Clark.

MORE NEWS

Shock solution to light rail funding fight

Popular Coast restaurant closes owing thousands

Iconic Surf Girl pageant drops name

Responding today to reports about costings of $450 million, Cr Tate said he believed the project will be “a lot less”.

But Hinterland-based councillor Glenn Tozer said the latest report only backs up his concerns about the feasibility of the project which began as a transit port.

“I think any reasonable person who sees the report now in the public domain would suggest that the costs are likely to increase which in turn will affect the economic feasibility of the project in its entirety,” Cr Tozer said.

Hinterland-based councillor Glenn Tozer - there are better ways to spend money. Photograph : Jason O'Brien.

“There are better priorities in the city that we could be focusing on which could deliver as good if not better outcomes for the city.”